"To be honest, I am personally chagrined because just a few months back, on this very blog, I had quoted from a Jim Birchenough report on ZIOP and noted that he was a "highly respected" analyst...After the shenanigan he tried to pull today, I, just like the market, have changed my mind and now stand corrected!"

What he pulled also may have been illegal. It's one thing to issue a negative analyst report but it's quite another for the retail side of the house to help the traders desk and their customers out of a jam. A major Wall Street firm did just that on the Thursday prior to the May 2002 expiry of GNTA options and was nailed by Hon. Eliot Spitzer and the State of Washington, for which, among other things, they paid a huge fine. Let's see if the SEC and FINRA were watching yesterday morning's actions, both Birchenough's and the market's.

"Runaway gaps are also called measuring gaps, and are best described as gaps that are caused by increased interest in the stock. For runaway gaps to the upside, it usually represents traders who did not get in during the initial move of the up trend and while waiting for a retracement in price, decided it was not going to happen. Increased buying interest happens all of a sudden, and the price gaps above the previous day's close. This type of runaway gap represents an almost panic state in traders. Also, a good uptrend can have runaway gaps caused by significant news events that cause new interest in the stock."

Thanks...I've read this on the XON and ZIOP IV Websites, among other places, and understand well the technologies involved. Still, from a technical standpoint, gaps always bother me. That said, I concur with you regarding the significance of the one earlier this year.

Great review! One thing that's always bothered me, from a technical standpoint, is the unresolved gap from last January. I understand there are gaps that, because of their significance, won't 'close', and wonder if this is one of them. Can you comment?

Right, I saw that. Terrible. I was, however, looking for verification regarding the high percentage of patients who might need ribavirin. Should have been clearer. If the number is really that high, it's going to be a rough ride. I can almost see the lawyer ads on television now.

BTW, I saw that the Wm. Blair analyst, John Sonnier, in a note yesterday, stated: "Moreover we estimate that about 75% of patients taking Viekira Pak will need the addition of ribavirin, which has been associated with significant adverse events.”

So...how long do you think it will be before enough people are sufficiently affected by ABBV's VIEKIRA PAK (or die from having used it) before the FDA puts a Black Box Warning on the treatment? (Frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't already carry one.)

Celgene: Do The Revlimid Polymorph And Use Patents Matter? [View article]

Celgene: Do The Revlimid Polymorph And Use Patents Matter? [View article]

I just saw this on the CELG Investor Village board. Can you explain in layman's terms?

Litigation alert

Towards the end of today the following stipulation was filed. It eliminates any question that Natco's proposed generic would infringement certain, but not all, of the patents Celgene is asserting. I don't know which of the patents are involved here, meaning whether they are the ones with long out expiration dates, or the ones more close in. The stipulation leaves defendants free to challenge these patents as invalid or obvious. Remember that by its motion regarding the Canadian deposition Natco is offering to give up any "unenforceability" challenge to these patents. The reason for this stipulation is not given. One guess is that defendants don't have any viable way to argue for non-infringement and they are concerned about exposure for attorneys' fees, per that very recent Supreme Court decision. But that is just a guess. What's interesting is that they are making this concession even before the contested meanings for the Markman hearing are decided. It is possible that the terms up for the Markman don't operate in the claims of these patents, so the Markman arguments can't help the defendants with infringement exposure for these patents. Again a guess.

Thank you, Mr. Ravicher. This is one of the best overviews of the situation I have seen in the financial literature.

If possible, would you address the matter of 'unclean hands' on the part of the generic company as well as their attempts to hide a critical witness (the ex-CELG employee who stole the drug from Celgene on their behalf) from Celgene's legal team?